Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Could housing be cheaper and better if we stop building so many staircases?

slate.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

121–130 of 309 posts

Re: Could housing be cheaper and better if we stop building so many staircases?

#121

Post by Syonyk »

lazyasciiart wrote: post #115
Syonyk wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In the USA, the Sept 11 WTC collapse was another one of those "Shelter in place as deadly" incidents when "something that couldn't happen" (skyscrapers collapsing from impact/fire/{conspiracy theories go here}) did. They were "designed to withstand an airplane crash" - and, previously, other buildings had [0]. "Stay in a building that's actively on fire, don't worry, people will come and take care of it!" sounds, to…

I’d probably choose unfenced home swimming pools, driving laws, pollution and guns to fix before building fire codes, if we’re looking at “things that seem to be insanity”.

When the topic is "Why doesn't the US do stairwells like other countries?" and the answer is almost entirely "Fire codes prohibit it for the following list of mass-casualty fire deaths due to stairwell behaviors in fire," the rest of those things seem rather off topic.

Re: Could housing be cheaper and better if we stop building so many staircases?

#122

Post by dpark »

afirement wrote: post #80
dpark wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I could see a layperson like me thinking “yeah, thick concrete and fire doors; you’ll never need to fully evacuate”. I would expect architects, fire marshals, city planners, and other experts to see the obvious problem with this. Or at least one of them. It’a a single building. How do you build a plan around never needing to evacuate the place? It seems straightforward and appropriate to support a full evacuation str…

Apartment doors, walls and floors can withstand many hours of continuous burn. The building would never be on fire, at worst you’d have one apartment or one floors public areas on fire before it’s put out. If my apartment was on fire, no alarms would sound in the building, only within my apartment, it doesn’t matter to my neighbours. There’s certainly scenarios in which you might need to evacuate, like a bomb threat,…

> there’s more danger in hundreds of people fleeing in panic down stairs (whether that’s 1 stair case or 2) than staying inside.

Is there? I’ve never seen people panic when a fire alarm goes off. Maybe if the fire alarm is going off as the building is filling with deadly smoke people would panic. But then that seems appropriate (or at least better than sitting and waiting to die of smoke inhalation).

Pretty sure the Grenfell situation would have ended better by having everyone evacuate. And yes, the incompetent cladding work makes that a special case. But a huge amount of our codes are for a special case. Every so often it saves 70 lives.

Re: Could housing be cheaper and better if we stop building so many staircases?

#123

Post by julianapostate »

lazyasciiart wrote: post #109
onlyrealcuzzo wrote: post #102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A lot of regulations are designed to make new construction as expensive as possible and limit usable floor space as much as possible. No one should be surprised that fire safety laws are going to the extreme for safety at a large cost to floor space.

Citation needed.

Government agencies dont allow authoritative sources to remark on their incompetence. See the last 2 years as a citation of that.

Re: Could housing be cheaper and better if we stop building so many staircases?

#124

Post by bdowling »

dapids wrote: post #120
bdowling wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> think of all the wasted space and weight having 8 exit doors on a airplane If we could choose to fly on the same plane with 4 doors that would give us more legroom and get us to our destination in less time, I believe a lot of us would make that choice.

Can you elaborate how having more legroom and less doors makes a aircraft go faster?

An airplane with four doors instead of eight would weigh less so the plane may fly a little faster. Legroom shouldn't affect the speed.

Re: Could housing be cheaper and better if we stop building so many staircases?

#125

Post by 8bitsrule »

The first person I ever saw laid out on the ground during a fire had been sleeping in an apartment building which had only one exit, at one end of the building. The fire-escape stairs on the other end was missing, and the door bolted so it would not open.

The fire was raging near the only stairway. It was the only access firemen had. The young kid was dead.

"Seattle-based architect Michael Eliason" is a complete idiot.

Re: Could housing be cheaper and better if we stop building so many staircases?

#126

Post by rcthompson »

I live in an apartment with 2 staircases, an elevator, and a fire escape. Several months ago, there was a fire in a first floor apartment that blocked me from using ALL of them, via either unbreathable smoke or flames. I ended up just hiding in my room until the fire department dealt with it. I'm not sure whether this argues for more staircases or fewer.

(In hindsight I did have other options, but this was my first fire and I didn't know what to do.)

Re: Could housing be cheaper and better if we stop building so many staircases?

#127

Post by landemva »

onlyrealcuzzo wrote: post #102
ramshorns wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The amount of available space isn't the only benefit of using only one staircase. It also means the units can face outward in multiple directions and there's a more central common area.

A lot of regulations are designed to make new construction as expensive as possible and limit usable floor space as much as possible. No one should be surprised that fire safety laws are going to the extreme for safety at a large cost to floor space.

Municipalities in USA are adopting code for residential new construction to require sprinklers. Big cost that most people won't do anything to stop it because it is only for really big houses (for now). In fifteen years people will wonder why new housing is so expensive and every size house has sprinklers which the homeowner must hire someone to maintain. And pay for sprinkler inspection report prior to resale.

On a totally different note, I can't find any cheap or affordable new cars. Am looking for basic wheels without finicky gadgets like backup cameras and tire pressure monitors and lane departure warnings. Something simple and without high insurance costs to cover all those gadgets I don't need.

I wonder why things (house, car) seem unaffordable and contain gadgets which are difficult to fix and which increase insurance costs. What happened America?

Re: Could housing be cheaper and better if we stop building so many staircases?

#128

Post by dpc050505 »

xyzzyz wrote: post #40
petee wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Im not sure if I am reading your comment right, but if you're offering a choice of less space or higher survival... I mean, think of all the wasted space and weight having 8 exit doors on a airplane; they don't crash often

Most residential detached multi story houses only have one staircase. If government forced me to give up one bedroom and build an extra staircase, so that I have a slightly higher chance of survival of a very unlikely event, I’d be fucking pissed.

Being on the 7th story is very different from being on the 2nd story. If the staircase was to catch fire right now it'd be like a 6 meter jump down the window, maybe less if I manage to lower myself by hanging off the edge. I can land on my legs and I'd risk breaking an ankle or something like that at worst, not ideal but I wouldn't burn to death.

Re: Could housing be cheaper and better if we stop building so many staircases?

#129

Post by mlyle »

Syonyk wrote: post #121
lazyasciiart wrote: post #115

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I’d probably choose unfenced home swimming pools, driving laws, pollution and guns to fix before building fire codes, if we’re looking at “things that seem to be insanity”.

When the topic is "Why doesn't the US do stairwells like other countries?" and the answer is almost entirely "Fire codes prohibit it for the following list of mass-casualty fire deaths due to stairwell behaviors in fire," the rest of those things seem rather off topic.

Eh, the topic is broad. The real question is: where does it make sense for society to put resources to prevent premature death?

One option is staircases (aimed at reducing mass casualty events in fires). There are other options to improve fire safety. There are other options to improve safety in other circumstances.

Perhaps with the costs of second staircases, there are things we could do to buildings for less money that would save more lives from fire. Should we do both? Just the cheaper one? Neither?

How do we decide which ones are justified for their cost, and which ones aren't? Who should bear these costs? What things should be grandfathered and have a slow transition towards higher safety? What things should be immediately improved?

The answer to the staircase question comes down to how we answer questions like this. And the fact that we may be tolerating much bigger risks is definitely an interesting point.

Re: Could housing be cheaper and better if we stop building so many staircases?

#130

Post by dpc050505 »

Pxtl wrote: post #101
neilwilson wrote: post #83

Perhaps the solution is not to have apartments, and instead spread people and activity out across the country. Particularly pertinent in the Covid era when we have seen what living on top of each other leads to.

That might work if not for climate change.

the way we currently live in urban areas doesn't work either when you account for climate change.
Post reply on HN